Jump to content

Talk:2013 German federal election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean Clark (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 22 April 2015 (→Turnout in infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction

The intro to this article needs a re-write. Far too many brackets and long sentences, making it very difficult to understands. I'm also uncomfortable with the third paragraph of the introduction as it implies a highly subjective observation as factual. Either it needs to backed up with hard evidence or it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmcs005 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

Steinmeier:Merkel = 42:43 Steinbrück:Merkel = 42:43 Gabriel:Merkel = 31:50

Quelle: DasErste, Infratest dimap

Institute
 Date
 CDU
 SPD
 GREEN
 FDP
 LINKE
 Others
Forsa 02.02.2011 36 % 22 % 21 % 5 % 9 % 7 %
Infratest dimap 03.02.2011 36 % 25 % 19 % 5 % 8 % 7 %
Infratest dimap 06.02.2011 35 % 27 % 17 % 5 % 10 % 6 %
Forsa 09.02.2011 36 % 22 % 20 % 5 % 10 % 7 %
Forschungsgruppe Wahlen 11.02.2011 36 % 27 % 17 % 5 % 9 % 6 %
Emnid 13.02.2011 34 % 25 % 19 % 6 % 10 % 6 %
Infratest dimap 14.02.2011 35 % 26 % 19 % 5 % 9 % 6 %
Forsa 16.02.2011 36 % 22 % 19 % 5 % 11 % 7 %
GMS 18.02.2011 34 % 26 % 19 % 5 % 10 % 6 %
Infratest dimap 18.02.2011 37 % 25 % 18 % 5 % 8 % 7 %

Source: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.70.250 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can't average polls from different institutes which use different methods to gather information. what you did was WP:OR. please provide proof that "TGS Polling" even exists. So far you, 93.193.*, are the only one who knows about that institute. proof can't be found. bluNt. 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TGS Polling pulishs his polls in the Westerwälder Zeitung (I read it), but not in the internet. What should I do? Scan it or what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.107.249 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ; In the last election it predicted 34.0 for the Union and 23.0 for the SPD, which was exactly correct - you will see, after the state elections of the 27th March the other polling institutes will correct their numbers in the area of TGS Polling (sorry my English is bad cause i'm from germany ;)[reply]
I don't believe one word you write. You claimed that TGS uses online panels to conduct its research, but they are nowhere to be found online. Than you claim they publish in the "Westerwälder Zeitung", which coincidentally doesn't have an website as well or even doesn't exit. There is a "Westerwälder Zeitung" as a regional division of the "Rhein Zeitung", but they don't use the not existing "TGS polling".
Ich glaub dir kein Wort. TGS Polling ist eine reine Erfindung von dir. Ohne nachvollziehbare Belege, dass es die Firma und die Umfragen gibt, wirst du keine Zahlen von denen mehr in Wikipedia-Artikeln veröffentlichen. bluNt. 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TGS Polling was wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong about TGS polling? Their numbers or you making up an institute? --bluNt. 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Es war nur ein Versuch... Kommt nicht wieder vor. Hey. Ich arbeite seit fünf Jahren an politischen Artikel mit und habe nie Ärger gehabt; ich wollte nur mal sehen, ob ich richtiger liege :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um zu wissen ob du richtiger liegst, musst du keine erfundenen Zahlen veröffentlichen? Wohl nicht, da reicht es sie dir aufzuschreiben. Dir ist schon klar, dass du viel Kredit mit der Aktion verspielt hast? Witzig ist das nicht. --bluNt. 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich werde dafür ab sofort umso seriöser arbeiten. Versprochen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich finde das ganz schon Scheiße was du da abgezogen hast. Erfindest Umfragen, ein Institut und eine Quelle. Wenn du schon so lange dabei bist, dann lerne wenigstens mal das signieren. bluNt. 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been no polls since May 2011? Circumspect (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://wikiumfragen.wikia.com/wiki/Umfragen_zur_Bundestagswahl_in_Deutschland#Bundesweite_Parteienpr.C3.A4ferenz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.119.20 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Could we please get a consensus on whom we consider as the parties' poster kids? While the chancellor when running should be pictured for her party, we should be able to agree on whether the parliamentary party chairpersons (Steinmeier; Brüderle; Gysi; Künast, Trittin) or the party chairpersons (Gabriel; Rösler; Lötzsch, Ernst; Roth, Özdemir - plus, just to be complete, Seehofer for the CSU) are pictured for the other parties. I personally would prefer the party chairpersons (until the formal head candidates are confirmed!) without Seehofer since the CSU is Merkel's CDU's sister party and won't challenge the common candidate in the federal election. Regards. --EBB (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After nobody showed interest in this issue, I have reinstated Sigmar Gabriel as the SPD party chairman, as all other parties have their party chairpersons in the "Leaders" entry. --EBB (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were entirely right to do so, but in the meantime somebody, without giving any justification, changed it to Peer Steinbrück - maintaining the text ssaying that he is leader since 2009, which is obviously nonsense. I wouldn't mind if all pictures were changed to head candidates, but then (a) we would have to wait until this is confirmed for Rösler, and (b) it would be convenient to replace "leader" by "head candidate". -- Aflis (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this specific case I do think it is the best way to include those people who have been determined as chancellor/head candidates as such, and for parties which have not yet done so (or which are not [yet] expected to expressly do so) to include their party chair(wo)men. This means, for the SPD I would like Steinbrück to stay, and for the other parties, to keep their chairpersons for now. Of course, any 2009 date for Steinbrück is wrong, and I would prefer to have his official nomination on 9 November to have in the article once it has happened. But as I understand that we should display reality, he de facto already is the SPD's candidate. If what I said makes any sense to you, you must have misunderstood me ... --EBB (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

For reasons that defy logic, someone has simply deleted polling at the end of any given year. I have fixed this foolishness by salvaging the data and putting it, together with 2012, in a new article called Opinion polling for the next German federal election. This is what is done when the tables get too long. In any event, someone might want to double check that no polling at the end of 2010 and 2011 was omitted. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I suggest to change the name of this article to [German federal election, 2013] since even if Angela Merkel immediately would initiate a motion of confidence, the poll would be held in 2013. ChryZ MUC, 11:48, 12 November 2012

Not necessarily, the elections would then have to be held within 60 days, but there is no lower limit on the timespan between dissolution and new elections. Also, there is the theoretical possibility of postponed elections due to war (or, more realistically, a constitutional change prolonging parliament's term). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming the article. 2013 is upon our doorstep. And war ... well, I guess that's always possible, and so is the end of the world ... but is highly unlikely. German federal election, 2013 is more descriptive and also is parallel to the naming of United States presidential election, 2016. --Cryout 00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryout (talk • contribs)
The argument about parallelism is wrong. It is standard for parliamentary elections to be named "Next..." until it becomes impossible for an election to be held in any but one year. It would be nice if we knew what the deadlines in a German campaign were (close of nominations and the like), because that is often what we use to made these determinations. In the absence of that, I say we wait until about the 15th, at which point just printing the ballots would become impossible, or nearly so, to do in time for a 31 December election. -Rrius (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support making the move now. I don't know about formal nomination deadlines, but I don't know any German election that was organized in less than a month, plus there are no more school-holiday-free Sundays left (by convention, elections are never placed within holidays when avoidable). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland)

can we add Alternative for Germany on the list of political parties who participate in the elections? 81.58.144.30 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commonscat Bundestagswahl2013

For up-to-date pictures (Shot by a community projekt see:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bundestagswahl_2013.

Greetings from Berlin, Germany --Sven Volkens (WMDE) (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Apparent and alleged as references to antisemitism are violations from neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.126.92 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majority government.....

In the header of the article and in news articles I have seen it mentioned that Merkel will have to form a grand coalition with the SPD or form a coalition with the Greens. The assumption seems to be that Merkel will definitely remain as Chancellor. But why is this? Isn't it possible that the SPD could form a coalition with the Greens and The Left to get 317 seats and thus a majority?72.27.113.117 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Steinbrück has made it pretty clear before the election that the SPD won't join a coalition with The Left, shunning their ultra-left positions. So I'd say it's unlikely that we'll get a red-red-green government. But who knows? De728631 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that the Left party will support the SPD/Green coalition outside of government.Ericl (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. It's been attempted in the state of Hesse a few years back. That resulted in a rebellion by SPD backbenchers and effectively ended the political career of Andrea Ypsilanti. Steinbrück will not try that route. The enmity between The Left and the SPD runs too deep. 86.171.30.141 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....but there is a SPD/Die Linke coalition in Brandenburg now is there not? And is there not a possibility that there could be a minority SPD/Greens government with Die Linke backing much like what happened in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2010 where a CDU/FDP coalition ended up being out of government even though individually the CDU gained the plurality of votes (and along with the SPD gained a plurality of seats; both got 67 seats)? Back in 2010 Der Spiegel was quoting the Financial Times Deutschland as saying that the SPD/Greens minority government was doomed to failure, yet in a 2012 snap election the SPD/Greens coalition won a majority. And at the time a CDU/SPD grand coalition was also thought to be the most likely option for NRW.72.27.0.7 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm sure Steinbrück and the SPD will much prefer being the junior in a stable grand coalition with the CDU than risk leading a shakey coalition with the Greens and Die Linke. Alandeus (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, its fairly typical to go to individual members of other parties and to offer up various concessions and deals to get their votes. Is such an arrangement possible in Germany? Could the CDU/CSU find maybe four or so members from other Parties and offer them patronage positions or concessions in other areas to secure their support or abstentions? I would really like to know if this is possible> 108.66.9.85 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically there is no party discipline in Germany when it comes to votes in parliament because all representatives are supposed to vote according to their own responsibility and conscience. In reality however, there is often a strong internal party discipline, and potentially insecure voters are often urged to follow the course of the party or faction. Apart from that, the representatives in Germany are not so much obligued to the people and lobbyists who voted them in but to the party who nominated them in the first place. So to get re-nominated in the next voting period requires you to be largely in line with your party. Stray voters in parliament may even be excluded from their political faction if it turns out later that they damaged their own party by not voting in line with the rest. So, while there have been successful attempts of influencing candidates from the opposition for individual key votes, building an entire government on a few stray votes wouldn't work. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results by states?

It would have been interesting to have a list with results by states, like in the article about the 2009 election. --Oddeivind (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Oddeivind (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List order

What is the basis of the order of the minor candidates? It doesn't seem to reflect number of votes in either category, nor is it alphabetical. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the order of parties that didn't win seats in the results table? They're listed in the order of the "party list" votes they received as many of these parties run few candidates in constituencies, that is the most apples-to-apples comparison. I see though that one party is not in the right order, I will move them. - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2]*>> Is Greece leading the way to a new European crisis? (Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Infobox images

The constant changing of the candidates' images shown in the infobox is becoming disruptive because it makes the article unstable. So instead of experimenting back and forth in the live article, could you please discuss which version looks best? I suggest we create a sandbox subpage for this article to test various layout versions of the infobox and gain consensus. Anything else is rather counterproductive imho. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add AfD into the infobox

Is there anyway that AfD could be added into the infobox, it only finished a fraction of a percent behind the FDP in terms of votes and they both achieved the same number (0) of MP'sGuyb123321 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's good idea. The FDP was voted out of parliament and is therefore significant enough to be displayed in the infobox as a former government party that failed to return. The Alternative für Deutschland (not to be confused with Articles for deletion), however, didn't play any significant role before the elections and neither did they enter the Bundestag afterwards. Putting them into the infobox would lend them undue weight. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map of direct districts

The caption of the map of direct districts won by party is wrong. The dark blue doesn't mean CSU. Blue is CDU/CSU combined. The darker the color, the bigger the margin of victory. Since the CSU generally dominate in Bavaria, the CSU districts are darker then the CDU districts, but this isn't by design, but an added information.

I did not find a short, succinct descritption, but I thought it should be at least mentioned.

134.99.182.27 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Max[reply]

Dark blue does in fact indicate a CSU-only district. Please check the original source and you will see that there is the same distinction between "dark blue"/CSU and "blue"/CDU. I think this choice is a bit unfortunate because at a quick glance with all those different shadings you don't really know where CDU begins and CSU ends. But then there is no CDU in Bavaria anyway for reason of historical Bavarian "autonomy" (Focus article in German) so there is always the geographical limit to keep in mind. The CDU/CSU union does appear as a one faction in the Bundestag but the constituencies in Bavaria did not have any CDU candidates nor were there CSU candidates outside Bavaria. De728631 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout in infobox

Sean Clark, as per comment "Again reverting to standard election infobox turnout format – A PERCENTAGE. Don’t want to start some argument here, but there’s no need for that extra info like the number of voters; meaningless & already in the detailed results section below."

First, there is not an standard on this I think. Some election articles show number of voters, other show it the format you put it, and others not even use the turnout field at all. Some other argument could be used to remove this, but sincerely, not because of an "standard", since there's none on this. EDIT: Furthermore, on your revert of my edit on the 2009 article, you used a different "standard" than the one you want to use for the 2013 election, further strengthening my view that there is no established common "standard" to use as argument.

Secondly, by your same reasoning we could very well remove popular vote results for each party, as they are all in the table below, and just show percentages. We would agree that popular vote is a useful data, however, and that is why it is there; yet, if popular party vote is shown, it only makes it more useful to have total voter turnout numbers in the infobox too, to show relative to what number are those votes shown (it it's not the same 18 out of 44 million than 18 out of 144, for example), without necessarily forcing the reader to go all the way to the detailed results table below. It doesn't occupy much space, neither (the turnout field is actually pretty empty otherwise), so I don't find such a need to remove it. Also, the current format (the one I defend) has not caused any major trouble to users, since it wasn't removed since I introduced it on 30 November until now.

Finally, it's very unpolite to try to push forward your view without opening a discussion. Discuss the issue here, and abstain from reverting the edit before discussion is over. I don't want to engage in an edit war. You don't need to be so rude as to keep overriding my opinion as if it didn't matter, just on the basis that "it's not needed". On that basis we would not even have an "infobox", since all info is in the tables anyway. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did emphasise that I did/do NOT want an edit war, that isn’t my goal – should be mentioned. It just annoys me that that one election differs from the others. After all, it wasn’t me who wanted to reinvent the wheel (since you replaced Danmaybp’s contribution in November 2014). “It’s very unpolite to try to push forward your view without opening a discussion”, I appreciate that and apologise if I came across as being rude by ‘pushing’ it forward, but my intentions were clear: match the 2013 one to the other 42 (counting ’09) Bundestag elections that share the same format. Admittedly, the pp-based change is quite interesting, so that might indeed be a good idea to include. Finally, you’re right in saying that there are different formats scattered around, but for German elections it was/is just the percentage; if one would want to change that, one should discuss it on the talk page – ‘opening a discussion’, as you say.
—Sean Clark (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_German_federal_election&oldid=658758957"